"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Is it really an insult to say you don't have the knowledge needed to verify any such claims inventors make? How exactly would you "investigate" it?

I posed this question to Mary a few times, didn't hear anything coherent back. It would appear that what passes for "research" is reading a few
pseudo-science tomes, or watching a New Age DVD set procured from the Web at the cost of $340. As to relation to experimental results at least at the
level of back-of-the-envelope quick calculus, how can Mary be bothered. Vortex! Explains everything, dunnit?

It seems like there should be a decision diamond before reading the e-mail that says:
"Has brain already fallen out?"
If no, proceed down to read the e-mail. If yes, put brain back in before proceeding. If unable to replace brain, believe any claim without proof.

Then when it says to read the email with an open mind but not so open your brain falls out, at least you know it's even capable of falling out. If
it's already fallen out beforehand, the vacuum between the ears should allow belief in anything no matter how outrageous, like Searl building one
machine after another that all fell up through the roof.

And how can I not like that brain falling out expression? It's in my signature.

With the money they are charging for such crap you could buy a few decent textbooks on the sciences and really educate yourself to have the background
needed to examine a scientific claim. And if you go with Dover books, you could pretty much study an undergrad degree on your own, provided you can
self-study.

With the money they are charging for such crap you could buy a few decent textbooks on the sciences and really educate yourself to have the background
needed to examine a scientific claim.

You see, what gets mixed up here in these threads are very different things. Truthfully, to discuss divergence of certain integrals in QED would
require an ungodly commitment of effort. Or to be able to judge what Mendel Sachs has to say on gravity. These are tough, tough subjects. On the other
had, it only take a good pop science book to see through Rodin's cr@p. Scratch that, it only takes common sense.

And if you go with Dover books, you could pretty much study an undergrad degree on your own, provided you can self-study.

In my time, one could hire a decent physics tutor for between $15 and $30 an hour, don't know what is the current going rate.

This text has developed out of an alternate beginning physics course at New Mexico Tech designed for those students with a strong interest in
physics. The course includes students intending to major in physics, but is not limited to them. The idea for a "radically modern" course arose out
of frustration with the standard two-semester treatment. It is basically impossible to incorporate a significant amount of "modern physics" (meaning
post-19th century!) in that format. Furthermore, the standard course would seem to be specifically designed to discourage any but the most intrepid
students from continuing their studies in this area - students don't go into physics to learn about balls rolling down inclined planes - they are
(rightly) interested in quarks and black holes and quantum computing, and at this stage they are largely unable to make the connection between such
mundane topics and the exciting things that they have read about in popular books and magazines.

It's not extremely advanced but it does contain
knowledge which is lacking by some participants in this thread, and doesn't cost a dime. But to comprehend the math in that book would probably
require several years worth of math for some people, depending on their current math ability. Who studies that much calculus and differential
equations besides people in math, physics and engineering?

This calculus book is also free and might help as a primer for the "Mathematical Tools for Physics" book: Understanding Calculus

Even that book assumes you have a pretty good understanding of high school math, like algebra, geometry, so if you're rusty at those you might need
refreshers on those topics, which you can find for free too. I hope this helps for anyone interested.

I don't know of more advanced physics textbooks for free, but this website is pretty good if you just want to see definitions regarding more advanced
concepts:

Quantum PhysicsParticles (The stuff Beebs doesn't believe in?)It doesn't get into much
math but it defines a lot of concepts, though buddhasystem would have to tell me how accurate it is, it's not my area of expertise. But based on my
knowledge of the areas I am familiar with, it looks reasonably accurate.

Originally posted by ArbitrageurParticles (The stuff Beebs doesn't believe in?)It doesn't get into much
math but it defines a lot of concepts, though buddhasystem would have to tell me how accurate it is, it's not my area of expertise. But based on my
knowledge of the areas I am familiar with, it looks reasonably accurate.

Arb, the diagram is correct in the sense of a computer program written in Prolog (indeed, it looks like an illustration made for that system).
Aesthetically, I don't find it pleasing. It also does not expose the vast degree of symmetry existing between quarks and leptons, as well as
symmetries within each family. It does not show that most hadrons can be understood as excited states of a smaller number of underlying systems (quark
configurations).

For close to 30 years now, I've been using the following source as a reference (of course it used to be in paper format only before WWW). It contains
tables, reviews and articles

So does that mean in September 2011? And I wonder if the larger book will be out sooner or later? ("soon" isn't all that descriptive). If you have
any idea let me know, otherwise I'll check the site once in a while, I bookmarked it. And it sounds like they might make a pdf available for
download? I don't really need a paper copy.

So does that mean in September 2011? And I wonder if the larger book will be out sooner or later? ("soon" isn't all that descriptive). If you have any
idea let me know, otherwise I'll check the site once in a while, I bookmarked it. And it sounds like they might make a pdf available for download? I
don't really need a paper copy.

Both are published annually. The booklet fits in your pocket (it used to be quite thin in late 70-s, when I started getting my copies it was still
thinnish bun now it's half an inch thick).

The review is a paperback of a rather monumental size. It's a fascinating read. It contains ALL of the data in the booklet. I have to say last time I
got my hardcopy was in 2006, I don't need the freshest printed edition.

EDIT TO ADD:
As far as I can tell most of the info in the Review is available on the site (not sure but it's likely). There are plenty of links that result in PDF,
so there you go.

I downloaded the 320 page booklet pdf from 2010, but I didn't find the 1422 page review yet, I didn't see it on the download page like the booklet.
The booklet's more than enough for now though, thanks.

If these things don't exist like beebs suggests, they sure seem to have a lot of detailed data on them for imaginary particles

and everything else on itunesu(enough there to keep you busy for life)

it's all FREE

and it's real science, not this hocus pocus mumbo jumbo crap.

you could spend the $340 on important things like beer and a good bottle of scotch. sadly, some people want to believe they are in on something
amazing that no one has heard of yet. It's like hipsters and music. They know of all these bands that are totally underground and overlooked by
labels and the press...but when you listen to them, you know why...it's awful.

Photons can be described as particles, and they are energy only. It seems that you regard a particle as a solid piece of mass, a
grain-of-sand-like structure as you called it earlier. You even suggested I should not regard it like that, but it seems that you do it yourself.
Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon
can be described as such.

As for the form of energy, it seems to me that it would be thermal energy in the case of a light bulb. But what does it matter? And yes, it behaves
like a particle when we measure, hence the wave/particle duality. It seems you totally agree on that, but somehow you still want to look at it as a
wave only. I don't really understand why you want to ignore the particle-like behavior which you agree there is.

Described as particles. What is your idea of a particle? What is an 'object of something'?

I will rather take my own description over yours. Thanks.

Particle like behavior only comes AFTER we collapse the superposition/wavefunction and it is then NOT natural, but in a decoherent, changed state.

I believe that it is a wave-only system BEFORE we fiddle with it.

Particle like behavior does not equal particle. Of course, the same goes for wave like behavior. But we don't have a 'probability particlefunction'
do we? We have a wavefunction.

ETA:

By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that agreed with
experimental results. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its
intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy photons, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply
no photons of sufficient individual energy to dislodge any electrons. This was an enormous theoretical leap, but the concept was strongly resisted at
first because it contradicted the wave theory of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, and
more generally, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the
photoelectric effect were accurate, resistance to the idea of photons continued, since it appeared to contradict Maxwell's equations, which were
well-understood and verified.

Superposition of quantum mechanics? Do you mean the Everett many-worlds interpretation?

I mean quantum superposition. A many-worlds theory is an exotic spin-off of trying to deal with the theoretical and philosophical implications of
superposition. This is why I prefer to interpret quantum mechanics as waves only, to tone down such exotic speculation. And don't repeat Feynman's
"if you don't like it go somewhere else" because he gave up trying to understand quantum mechanics.

That we measure light as particles is a fact, it isn't a misinterpretation. We are entering the field of philosophy and leave the field of science
by claiming otherwise. But basically you say that you just don't like the Copenhagen interpretation. Despite the fact we measure light as
particles.

That we measure light as particles is not a fact, the fact is that when we measure light it appears as 'discrete energy packets'. A big philosophical
difference.

That is the difference here. No one thinks philosophy has anything to do with physics or science - when in fact it is philosophy that gives you the
ground you stand on.

Critical thinking about theoretical presuppositions is essential to real understanding.

If you just want to make crap and increase the 'epicycle-to-knowledge' ratio by just building upon the established status quo, then you are not a
scientist or truth seeker. You are a believer and a repeater.

I don't need to do research, I can logically deduce its a scam. If it was real he would be selling working generators that do not require fuel,
he had enough time to put them in production. He isn't so its a scam. Any but it just for the gullible.

Well, of course there's no probability particle function; the 'waves" you see are experimentally described probabilities of where a particle will
go. It doesn't mean that nature is continuous. Where it is likely to hit is not the same as hitting all those places at the same time.

You agree nature in quantized, yet you insist everything is continuous. Do you see a problem there?

I think
it's ignorant to assume any perpetual motion machine works, or whatever other name you want to call it. History repeats itself with respect to these
scams.

It boils down to my signature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming overunity as a violation of the laws of physics as we
know them is an extraordinary claim. I won't say it's impossible, but it's a situation requiring extraordinary evidence which hasn't been provided
by anyone, so yes it's ignorant to believe those claims without extraordinary evidence.

This "holy grail" article I linked to doesn't make any claim about overunity or violating the laws of physics. Whether it ultimately becomes
commercially viable is another question, but at least they don't claim to break the known laws of physics with overunity, so the claims aren't that
extraordinary, but encouraging nonetheless. To all you folks who can't tell what's a scam from what's real, the artificial leaf thing may actually
be real though I question the artificial leaf analogy. But economical hydrogen production through electrolysis could go a long way to solving our
energy problems if this pans out, and it's all done with known laws of physics.

Well, of course there's no probability particle function; the 'waves" you see are experimentally described probabilities of where a particle
will go. It doesn't mean that nature is continuous. Where it is likely to hit is not the same as hitting all those places at the same time.

You agree nature in quantized, yet you insist everything is continuous. Do you see a problem there?

I disagree. The wavefunction is a way to describe natural and coherent energy density.

It predicts the status of decoherent 'particle like behavior' if we were to measure the system.

Nature is discretely continuous. Its continuity is characterized by discrete behavior.

Then you can intelligently formulate your opinions on their standpoints.

As it is now, I really don't understand why you hang around, because you obviously haven't taken the time to research either ones claims very
thoroughly. You just lump them together based on your meager first impression and biased presuppositions.

But I recommend Searl over Rodin, because Searl is at the point that Rodin wishes he was.

John Searl is for real. You would have to be an idiot in denial to think that he is a scam artist.

"Nothing is impossible, except that the state of your mind makes it so." - John Searl

So basically, according to your definition saying that something behaves like a discrete quantum does not mean it behaves like a particle? It seems to
me that you simply handle a different definition of particle. When I see a physicist talk about particles, this is exactly how I imagine particles; a
discrete, in-dividable quantity of "something". Can you describe what you mean by particle? (not too familiar with Democritus particle atomism)

Anyway, the main issue still stands. Whether we call it discrete quanta or particles, it can't go through both slits simultaneously, so the paradox is
not solved.

It seem to me that you either accept the many world interpretation, or you see the wave function as a pure mathematical construct, that has no basis
in reality and only describes how particles distribute. But maybe you can elaborate. Do you think there is an actual wave, but no particle, before any
reaction takes place? And do you think the particle only starts existing at the moment the wave reacts with something? In that case, how is the wave
transformed into a particle? Isn't that a bit of a crucial question you would need to answer and explain? Another issue, shouldn't the wave always
reacts to the object it hits first? And shouldn't that also be the place where the particle appears?

Maybe first we should clear up something:

It seems you are describing a particle itself as a wave. You still see it as a point like object, but this small object is a vibration of "something".
But the whole idea of describing light as a wave is that is no longer is confined. It is wave just like in the ocean. It diffracts, it can be divided
infinitively. But that is not what you mean by "wave like behavior", right?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.